Back to Newsletter Page

UPAC NEWS

NEWSLETTER FOR THE UTAH PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL COUNCIL

Published Biannually
May 2003

Matthew Seddon, President
Bonnie Bass, Editor

IN THIS ISSUE
President’s Message
Spring Meeting Information
Music and Technology Reviews
Daily Grind
Restaurant Review
Executive Committee Point of View
Legal/Current Issues
Fall Minutes
Field Schools

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE
Matthew Seddon

"The open, surface nature of so many western sites leaves the analyst still at the mercy of typology--a fickle tool at best..." (Jennings 1953:207).

Exactly fifty years ago, Dr. Jesse Jennings first published his "Desert Culture" concept in a relaxed preliminary report on his work at Danger Cave. At the time, he was struggling with ways to deal with the emerging wide diversity in archaeological data from the Great Basin and surrounding region. Armed as we now are with projectile point typologies, large samples of C14 dates, the results of numerous huge projects and comparative studies, it is easy to forget the sheer difficulty that Jennings and others faced when simply trying to figure out what the stuff they were finding meant. Jennings' 1953 article in El Palacio made a tentative first stab at the problem; posing the "Desert Culture" as a way to apply "...some generalized term to the whole sorry lot" (Jennings 1953:208).

Although we have come a long way in the past 50 years, and our theoretical backgrounds are much more diverse, we face similar problems and are vexed by similar assemblages. Open sites, also known as the ubiquitous “lithic scatter,” are the most common sites we encounter, and they cause us all serious consternation. Open, limited activity sites pose questions for archaeological research, archaeological methods, and cultural resource management. These issues have not been approached in a particularly coordinated manner, leading to debates that drag on over small issues--debates that often skim or ignore the big issues driving the problems. I propose that we can learn a bit from Dr. Jennings by searching for some unifying ideas. I'm not thinking of having us all toe the same theoretical line, but if we develop some common themes, common questions, common issues, and relatively common approaches to these sites, we may make all of our lives a bit easier and employ more productive approaches to the past.

At the Fall 2002 UPAC meeting, we decided to begin working toward a conference and UPAC publication focusing on lithic scatters. As a first step towards this, we need to define and develop the issues and questions in a calm and productive environment. The 2003 UPAC spring meeting along the San Rafael River will be the venue. I now start this process by making a call for people who are interested in developing "positions" on issues surrounding lithic scatters, which will be discussed in the round at the spring meeting. In a quick brainstorming session, the executive committee was able to identify at least 4 major issues that swirl around lithic scatters: 1) Management Issues, 2) Research Issues, 3), Methodological Issues, 4), Consultant Issues. I would like to call on those of you who have a strong opinion about any or all of these to volunteer to lead a discussion. You don't necessarily have to prepare a formal position, just have one, and start the conversation. You can also speak on any other related issue - you aren't limited to these four. Let me know what you are interested in speaking on, and I can give you more details. I'd like to call on everyone else to come to the meeting and participate. We anticipate that formal papers will be developed for a future UPAC meeting, followed by a publication that we can all use. I look forward to hearing from all of you!

Reference:
Jennings, J.D. (1953) Danger Cave: A Progress Summary. El Palacio 60:179-214.

SPRING UPAC MEETING MAY 16-17, 2003
(The UPAC News editor apologizes for the short notice)

The UPAC spring campout will be held May 16 & 17, 2003, at Hambrick Bottom in Cat Canyon, San Rafael Swell (see map below for directions). The route will be marked with flagging tape. The business meeting will begin at 3:00 pm on May 16th. A potluck dinner will follow the business meeting. UPAC will provide the burgers, veggie burgers, and condiments. Please bring a salad, side dish, dessert, or beverage to share! Portable toilets will also be provided by UPAC.

In the morning of May 17th, UPAC will provide a continental breakfast. After breakfast, a lithic scatter roundtable discussion will be held. At the Fall 2002 UPAC meeting, the membership decided that UPAC should start working on developing a thematic conference to discuss relevant issues facing archaeologists throughout the state of Utah. It was suggested that the first topic be lithic scatters, about which viewpoints and suggestions for managing these types of archaeological resources could be presented. There are currently 5 discussion leaders for May 17th. Please join UPAC in developing ideas and generating conversation about this topic!

Archaeological Reports
Bighorn Cave, Test Excavation of a Stratified Dry Shelter, Mohave County, Arizona, edited by Phil R. Geib and Donald R. Keller.

This volume was published by Northern Arizona University as Bilby Research Center Occasional Paper No. 1. It includes a companion CD with searchable data tables as well as a PDF file of the full report with high-resolution photos. The University of Arizona Press is handling distribution of the book, which will sell for $25.

Wouldn't it be great if more UPAC members announced newly published or submitted reports in the UPAC News? That way all of us would be up to date on current work and research that is being done out there!

UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY
Steve Simms, Editor
Dave Jabusch, Co-Editor
Lara Petersen, Editorial Assistant
Kate Toomey, Copy Editor

The journal will be ready for distribution in early April to UPAC and USAS members and subscribers. This issue will be about twice as long as the 2001 issue. It will feature a "Current Anthropology"-style discussion on Fremont basketry and what basketry has to say about NAGPRA and the cultural affiliation of the Fremont. There is a photo essay of Paleoindian points from northern Utah, an innovative technical paper on Fremont sexual division of labor, and another innovative piece predicting aspects of settlement location by ancient Wasatch

Front fishing groups. There is even a nice historical archaeology article. Make sure your membership is current so you will receive a copy of Utah Archaeology 2002. Also please consider supporting your journal with a submission. The range of possibilities is large, and I am happy to work with authors before submission, as well as throughout the pre-publication process. Utah Archaeology is evolving more and more into an experiment in public archaeology. As will all journals, YOUR support is paramount. Graduate students - get that first publication. Contractors and agency archaeologists - distill and synthesize some of that work. Amateurs look over the last few issues for ideas and talk to Steve Simms or Dave Jabusch about a project.

Technology Review: TextAloud MP3
Rachel Quist

If you are like me, you have a long list of unread journal articles and despite the best of intentions the list is not getting any smaller. So, when I read about a new program, TextAloud MP3, that will transform written text into an MP3 spoken word file, I was intrigued and envisioned myself listening to a “journal article on CD” during my commute. I gave it a try and here are the results.

TextAloud MP3 is small computer program available to Microsoft Windows users that transforms text into spoken words. A document must be in the form of text file (*.txt) or a small document can be copied and pasted into the program itself. The document can be listened to immediately or saved as a MP3 or WAV file. TextAloud MP3 cannot convert MP3 files to an audio file readable by a typical CD player but other readily available programs, such as Musicmatch Jukebox (musicmatch.com), contain that capability.

In my experience, one of the most difficult tasks was obtaining a journal article in a text format. There are plenty of articles available in an Adobe Acrobat format (*.pdf) but it is a cumbersome process to convert those files into text files, especially if photographs and extensive formatting exist. Once that issue is solved then it only takes a few minutes to convert several pages of text into an audio file. TextAloud MP3 uses the Microsoft computer voices- Sam is the male voice and Mary is the female voice. An upgrade to more natural sounding voices is also available for an extra charge.

Overall, TextAloud MP3 worked well and exactly as it was intended to. Some minor issues I encountered included difficulty with acronyms and the lack of appropriate pauses. TextAloud MP3 will only properly speak an acronym if it is in the format “U P A C” rather than “UPAC” or “U.P.A.C.” Running a simple find and replace function prior to running the text to speak program can easily solve this problem. TextAloud MP3 also had difficulty pausing at appropriate intervals. This problem can be solved by placing several empty lines of text where appropriate pauses should exist, such as after the title or at the end of a chapter.

In summary, this technology is promising but the program did not work as well as I had hoped for my intended purpose. Larger documents required preliminary preparation and the lack of human voice inflections became somewhat tedious. However, the program worked exactly as advertised by NextUp.com and it was easy to download, install, and use. Best of all, I did not experience any software conflicts or system crashes.

TextAloud MP3, version 1.408
Publisher: www.nextup.com
Direct Link: http://www.nextup.com/TextAloud/index.html
File size: 4.37 mb
License: 30-day free trial; $24.95 to buy
Minimum requirements: Windows 95/98/NT/2000/XP

Music Review
Krüger Brothers Perform for Intermountain Acoustic Music Association
By Bonnie Bass and Jackie Rabb

On February 28, 2003, a few lucky bluegrass fans got to watch the amazing banjo plucking skills of Jens Krüger, who performed at the Ft. Douglas Theater with his brother, Uwe Krüger, and bassist Joel Landsberg. Jens and Uwe, who hail from Switzerland, have been playing bluegrass together for over thirty years, the result of which is a wonderfully mastered interactive symphony. The sheer joy that the Krüger Brothers get from playing bluegrass spills over to the crowd, and one can’t help but grin along with them while they play. Their new album, Up 18 North, rings of North Carolina – their home while in America. We suggest you check it out – it’ll make any of you that play bluegrass feel like you’d better move to Switzerland to learn how bluegrass is really played.

THE DAILY GRIND: CURRENT RESEARCH IN UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY

Alpine’s Utah Projects 2002
Alan D. Reed, Alpine

During 2002, Alpine Archaeological Consultants essentially completed work on one large pipeline project and conducted archaeological mitigation on another. The draft report for the Rocky Mountain Loop pipeline, which extends from northwestern New Mexico to northeastern Utah, skirting the Utah-Colorado border, was submitted to agencies, describing mitigative excavations at a number of sites. The final version of the report will soon be available. As described elsewhere, Alpine conducted archaeological data recovery for the Kern River Expansion Project pipeline, in conjunction with SWCA. Alpine conducted a Class I inventory for the Lower Duchesne Wetlands Project in northeastern Utah for the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission. A cultural resource inventory was also conducted for the same commission along the Strawberry and Duchesne rivers in Wasatch County. At Canyonlands National Park, Alpine conducted ruins stabilization at the Junction Ruin (42SW1555) for the National Park Service. Staff industrial archaeologist Gianfranco Archimede completed HAER documentation of the Deer Creek Dam and associated structures for UDOT’s Provo Canyon road improvement project. Lastly, Alpine initiated the documentation of select sites in Browns Park in Daggett County for the Bureau of Reclamation. This project will be completed with the arrival of spring. If you need any of the reports for these projects, please contact Alpine at: info@alpinearchaeology.com.

The Kern River Expansion Project-Winter 2003 Update
Matthew T. Seddon and Alan D. Reed

The Kern River Expansion Project (KREP), consists of placement of a 36” pipe parallel to the original Kern River Pipeline. The project crosses numerous archaeological sites while it traverses Utah. Alpine Archaeology and SWCA Environmental Consultants are jointly serving as cultural resource consultants for the project. We have provided brief project updates in previous UPAC newsletters and at the Fall 2002 UPAC meeting, and we will continue to provide updates in this venue.

Between the last update and present, archaeological field excavation has been predominantly completed. A total of 21 sites were selected for data recovery as one of many mitigation measures for the project. These sites included a range of components, from Paleoindian through Protohistoric. Currently, only one site, 42Be751, a rockshelter, is still undergoing excavation. Furthermore, all significant sites were monitored during pipeline construction, and excavation of discovered features was undertaken. The discovery excavations have also been completed.

Lab work, report production, and additional mitigation measures have now begun. Mitigation of cultural resources along the KREP pipeline has always included a variety of measures in addition to the archaeological excavations described above. A thermoluminescence study of ceramics, designed to address chronological issues in various ceramic types, is being undertaken. An obsidian hydration study is also underway, with the goal of further refining the regional relative hydration chronologies. A synthesis of all work in the Kern River corridor will also be produced. A GIS database of linear features (e.g. roads, canals, railroads) in Salt Lake County is being produced as a mitigation measure for the canals, roads, and railroads crossed by the project. This will be joined with a synthetic document providing contextual information for the features and which will be designed to help with documentation and eligibility judgments in the future. A synthetic volume, covering archaeological research in Western Utah is also under production. This volume will provide a review of past investigations, define site types, develop behavioral models, and identify data gaps and research needs. Finally, a popular report will be produced for the general public.

All of the lab work and additional mitigation measures are in their earliest stages at this point. We anticipate providing more detailed updates as lab results are in and as the studies are further developed.

Range Creek Canyon
Duncan Metcalfe, Utah Museum of Natural History

Range Creek Canyon is a drainage in the West Tavaputs Plateau in central Utah. Extremely remote due to the rugged character of this region, Range Creek is bordered by Nine-Mile Canyon to the north, the Book Cliffs to the east and south, and the Desolation and Grey Canyons of the Green River to the east. Range Creek heads at 10,000 feet in elevation and descends rapidly until it merges with the Green River 30 miles to the south at an elevation of about 4,000 feet The canyon itself is extremely rugged, consisting basically of a narrow, winding canyon floor at the base of two enormous canyon walls that tower nearly 3,000 feet overhead. The dozen or so named side-canyons that open into Range Creek, as well as the many unnamed ones, provide even the casual visitor with breathtaking vistas.

A large section of the canyon, and access to an even larger piece of the canyon and neighboring areas, was privately owned until 2002 when ownership was transferred to the Bureau of Land Management. Because of the long and vigilant efforts of the previous landowner, the archaeological sites in the area are in excellent condition and testify to a comparatively intensive Fremont occupation. In a single week last summer, 73 sites were located and recorded.

Simply stated, Range Creek Canyon shares many similarities with world-famous Nine-Mile Canyon, but without the 100 years of overt vandalism, visitor wear and tear, and the impacts of intensive ranching. We are unaware of another region in the state of Utah that has the sheer number and density of essentially untouched archaeological sites. In fact, the archaeology of Range Creek Canyon may be unique in the 21st century United States. Ongoing work in the canyon this summer will undoubtedly contribute greatly to our knowledge of the archaeology of this region.

Gordon Creek District Cultural Resources
John Senulis

The proposed NRHP district is the Gordon Creek Prehistoric and Historic Archeological District. The district encompasses roughly 850 acres in Carbon County, Utah. There are over 60 known prehistoric and historic archeological sites within the district. That number could double based on future surveys. The district has several different components that overlap in the cultural landscape.

Cultural resource inventories resulted in the discovery and recording of 24 new archeological sites. While there is buried evidence of the domestic Fremont lifestyle there is visible evidence in their rock art. There are 14 known rock art sites with over 25 panels in the Gordon Creek District.

Moreover, Caleb Rhodes had trapped in and visited the Price River Valley beginning in 1877. In 1879 Rhodes returned to settle Price accompanied by Frederick and Charles Grames. The initial agricultural based settlements established by these men were along the Price River near the site of the current town. Charles W. Grames, originally from England, arrived in Castle Valley as a young man to pursue farming and sheep herding. Grames bought and sold tracts of land in the valley (DUP, Compiling Board, 1948:73-76). One of these tracts was in upper Gordon Creek within the boundaries of the Gordon Creek Historic District. The foundation and the walls of the main house and foundations of several outbuildings at the Grames ranch are still there today as are remnants of both the telephone line and the road. Other historic sites in the western end of the district include a canal system by the road, several dugouts, and a possible blacksmith complex.

During Fremont and early historic times, the Gordon Creek Valley looked very different. The stream would not have been a deeply gouged canyon, which is the result of overgrazing and erosion of the unstable Mancos soils. The GLO mapmakers in 1910 noted the “dense undergrowth” and the following conditions “Gordon Creek, 10 Links (ca. 7 feet) wide, 6 ins. deep, good water, rapid current.” Sometime, shortly thereafter the erosion began and reached a point that habitation was too difficult and the Gordon Creek area was virtually abandoned after a very short period of Euro-American occupation. The abandonment resulted in isolation for the Gordon Creek District, which has enhanced preservation of both the prehistoric and early historic cultural resources. Other areas, such as the Miller Creek drainage were not as badly damaged by erosion, allowing population to remain in the area and an extensive road network to develop. The roads allowed access resulting in the vandalism to many of the early Fremont habitation sites.

Also within the Gordon Creek District is a segment of the Utah Railway. The Utah Railway (42CB1258) has been recommended for nomination to the National Register for its importance to the history of coal mining in Eastern Utah and the economic development of the Price Basin. The segment of the railway that passes through the Gordon Creek District includes an elaborate wood and steel curved trestle that spans the Gordon Creek Valley.

The proposed Gordon Creek Prehistoric and Historic Archeological District is recommended for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.

Eatin’ on the CRM Road
by Ron Rood

The neighborhood around the Rio Grande Depot is changing fast. We don't find many used hypodermic needles lying around the parking lot anymore and the fare for dining out is improving. Of course there is the Rio Grande Cafe, Tony Caputo's Italian Deli, and Big City Soup, but now there are two new places just west of the Rio Grande worth mentioning. The first is The Orbit Cafe. Located on 200 South just west of the Gateway Development, the Orbit is, well, overpriced and the food is not very good at all. The salad I ordered had wilted greens and sort of reminded me of a salad you would get on a cold February day at a "salad bar" in Milford. They do serve beer at the Orbit but you have to order food. If you want a good beer and something to eat, I'd recommend walking up the street to Squatters.

Fortunately, right across the street from the Orbit is the Hong Kong Cafe. It’s great, it’s fun, the food is good, and the service is amazing. Their Dim Sum menu is extensive, but don't make the same mistake I made on my first visit. The wait staff brings out trays of Dim Sum items for you and I assumed they were free samples. Well, they were not free and my lunch was nearly $30.00. Anyway, I had Dim Sum for the next few days. They have a wide array of teas and their lunch menu is extensive and moderately priced. The furniture at the Hong Kong Cafe is imported from China and it alone, with the mother of pearl inlay, is worth the trip.

So schedule your next file search at the Antiquities Section around lunchtime and check out the Hong Kong Cafe.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE POINT OF VIEW

What Has UPAC Done for Me Lately? (or, at least since the last newsletter)
Matt Seddon, President

Here is a sampling of what we have been working on or accomplished since the last newsletter:

Member Services - We have been working to improve member services via: 1) Changing the by laws to reflect reality and thereby more efficiently process new memberships; 2) Revisiting the meeting formats. Based on comment at the fall meeting, it is clear that a Spring/Fall set of meetings can be difficult for everyone, but particularly consultants, to attend. The Executive Committee was authorized to develop new proposals for formats, and at a recent meeting we decided to slowly move to a Winter/Summer format, with occasional joint meetings held with the USAS annual convention 3) Developing an improved website. We have designed a new UPAC website that has more features and is easier to navigate. We are currently pursuing free or reduced web hosting by X-Mission in Salt Lake City. We anticipate deploying the new website this year.

State Standards – We have been working to maintain and raise the standards of archaeology in Utah and to protect the work we do. Steps taken include: 1) Providing information on Geoarchaeological Licensing and working with the State Archaeologist to pursue exemptions for Geoarchaeology from the Geological Licensing Act; 2) Developing an awards system to promote quality work; 3) Developing and hosting a thematic conference on open-air, limited activity sites (aka "lithic scatters"). We anticipate following this conference with a publication; 4) Revamping the Curriculum Director position. This position will now serve as the UPAC coordinator for the Utah Avocational Archaeology Education Program. The Executive Committee, in consultation with the SHPO (per the vote at the fall meeting) decided that Rachel Quist will step into this position when her term as Secretary expires; 5) Providing input on the proposed rule changes to the State archaeological permitting process; 6) Developing a Curation Committee to address the curation crises; 7) Serving as an interested party in Section 106 Review. At the request of Susan Miller, UDOT Region Four archaeologist, UPAC provided commentary on UDOT's Southern Corridor Project. We selected an anonymous reviewer, provided their comments and official UPAC comments on the inventory report, and plan to provide comments on the treatment plan. The process made us realize that UPAC could serve a valuable role as an outside third party in large projects that have the potential to address significant issues in archaeology in the state. Consequently, we have begun developing guidelines and standards for the types of projects UPAC wishes to consult on, the mechanisms for conducting said consultation, and standards for UPAC reviews.

Although I'm pleased with the progress we have made, we always benefit greatly from more member participation. Please come to the Spring Meeting, bring your ideas, participate in the UPAC Yahoo email list, and send in your input. UPAC works best by providing a forum for reasoned discussion of the issues that interest and face us all. The bigger the forum, the better it works!

Proposed Guidelines for UPAC Section 106 Consultation
Matt Seddon, President

At the UPAC Spring Meeting in 2002, Garth Portillo and I raised the issue of UPAC potentially serving as a consulting party in Section 106 cases. In the ensuing discussion, it was concluded that UPAC could do such a thing, and the Executive Committee was given leeway to develop a procedure. Having other fish to fry, the Executive Committee decided to deal with it on a case-by-case basis, worrying about it primarily if the issue ever came up. The issue recently came up when we received a request from UDOT Region Four to consult on a large project near St. George (see UPAC Accomplishments, this issue). While consulting, we realized that UPAC could serve a valuable role in Section 106 consultations by providing constructive, third party input. Nonetheless, we realized that we could streamline and improve the process if we had formal guidelines and procedures. Thus, the Executive Committee has developed a proposed set of guidelines. They follow. We are considering a mechanism to adopt these guidelines, either just a vote or formal incorporation in the by-laws. In the meantime, please review these proposed guidelines and bring your input and comment to the Spring Meeting (or provide it directly to me or the Executive Committee). Our goal is to have a set of guidelines that the professional community agrees upon, in order to provide a constructive and useful consultation process that will benefit archaeology in the state.

Proposed UPAC Section 106 Consultation Guidelines
The goal of UPAC Section 106 consultation is: To improve the archaeology conducted in the state by raising standards, applauding positive efforts, and encouraging sound research designs and methods.

UPAC is interested in consulting on:
Projects that have the potential to set precedents for the way archaeology is conducted in the state. Typically, these types of projects involve large numbers of sites, complex sites, or unique sites or groups of sites.

UPAC will conduct reviews and consult by:
Sending a letter to federal and state agencies requesting consultation on projects as described above. UPAC will then appoint a Section 106 Consultation Coordinator, and solicit volunteers to serve as a standing body of reviewers. The Consultation Coordinator and the Executive Committee will select potential reviewers from the body of volunteers. The Coordinator will serve a 1-year term. The Consultation Coordinator will receive consultation requests, and decide, in consultation with the Executive Committee if necessary, whether UPAC is interested in the review. If the project meets UPAC's standards for consultation, the Coordinator will select a reviewer or reviewers, and serve as the point of contact between the reviewer and the requesting agency. UPAC will submit the results of consultation in the form of an official UPAC statement, drafted by the Coordinator and approved by the Executive Committee. This statement will then be submitted to the reviewing agency along with the text of the anonymous review. If necessary, the Coordinator can appoint a mediator to assist with the consultation and review process.

UPAC consultation and reviews will:
1) Focus on the issues pertinent to UPAC's consultation goals (e.g. the big picture) and not on technical details or minor issues; 2) Be constructive, although constructive does not necessarily mean wholly supportive; "constructive" does means that a negative comment will be followed by constructive suggestions for improvement; 3) Refrain from ad hominem attacks, speculation as to the causes of perceived project deficiencies, or unnecessary meanness; and 4) Strive to note the positive aspects of the project and report(s).

Reviews that do not meet these standards will be returned to the reviewer for rewording, until they meet the standard. The official UPAC position may or may not match the anonymous reviewer's position in some or all respects. However, the anonymous review will always be submitted along with the official UPAC position as long as the anonymous review meets the UPAC review standards.

Announcing New UPAC Officers
James O’Connell, Vice President for Membership/Ethics
Bonnie Bass, Ad Hoc Committee for Voting

The UPAC Executive Committee would like to announce the winners of the 2003 election. Thank you to everyone who participated in the election, offered nominations, and ran in the election (as well as those of you that updated your dues along the way!).

The new UPAC Vice President for Government Affairs and Research is Shane Baker, and the new UPAC Secretary is Krislyn Taite. These official duties will commence at the UPAC Spring Meeting. Join UPAC in handing off the torch to Shane and Krislyn on May 16th!

The 2003 vote also acted to pass the motion to amend the UPAC bylaws.

LEGAL/CURRENT ISSUES

Utah Geologist Licensing Rules and Application Procedure
Bill Eckerle, Western GeoArch Research

Recently, the Utah Department of Occupational and Professional Licensing (DOPL) implemented the Utah Professional Geologist Licensing Act (the Act). Below is some information on the Act and the application process required to become a Professional Licensed Geologist. The following description reflects my experience and personal interpretation of DOPL policy and application requirements and is not an official statement of law or policy. As of January 1, 2003 the Act restricts the practice of geology in Utah to licensed individuals. Information on the Act, the Licensing Act Rules (the Rules), the DOPL umbrella licensing act, and application forms can be found at http://www.dopl.utah.gov/licensing/geologist.html. The DOPL Professional Geologist Licensing Board (Board) considers any documentation or interpretation of lithosphere and earth crust materials performed “before the public”, anywhere in the State of Utah, except for private use or education purposes to require licensing.

An exemption to the Act was requested by UPAC and approved by the Board in the Rules. It is reproduced below...

“(5) ‘Practice of geology before the public’ does not include the following aspects of the practice of anthropology and archeology:
(a) archeological survey, excavation, and reporting;
(b) production of archeological plan views, profiles, and regional overviews; or
(c) investigation and reporting of artifacts or deposits that are modified or affected by past human behavior.” [R156-76-102. Definitions.]

According to the Board, while the Act does not apply to strictly archaeological documentation, it does apply to any documentation or interpretation of lithosphere/crust materials on archaeological sites as they relate to landform, soil, or stratigraphic relationships. The Board interprets “before the public” to include [but not limited to] any compliance-related archaeological project. Specifically, documentation and interpretation of the lithosphere/crust, on archaeological sites, other than as expressly omitted by the exemption, fall under the Boards jurisdiction and requires that the investigator be a licensed geologist. As interpreted by the Board this type of documentation or interpretation can only be done under the supervision of a licensed geologist.

The rules provide for licensure by endorsement for professional licensed geologists from other jurisdictions. Otherwise, licensing requires a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in geoscience. The board recently licensed an applicant who possessed an anthropology degree with specialization in geoarchaeology, despite the fact that anthropology is not specifically mentioned in the Act or the rules as a geoscience. In addition to the degree requirement, an applicant must document 30 semester hours (or 45 quarter hours) of class work in geoscience with some credits in specified core geology subjects.

After January 1, 2004 applicants will be required to pass the National Association of State Boards of Geology (ASBOG), Fundamentals of Geology and Principles and Practice of Geology examinations. Until that time, applicants must have practiced as a geoscience, principal investigator for the last 5 of 7 years (documented 2000 hours/year), or must have been licensed as a principal for the last 20 years in another jurisdiction, or have passed a former equivalent examination.

The application requires detailed information on education and experience as well as an affidavit of good character and supporting documentation such as transcripts. Information on experience is required in a specified format, which is probably not compatible with an applicants’ current vita format. As well, the application requires a written verification of the applicants experience from an individual who is currently a licensed geologist or otherwise qualified individual.

The application process requires a non-refundable $165.00 fee. During December 2002, applications were being processed in under 3 weeks.

Who Pays For Archaeology?
Ron Rood, Assistant State Archaeologist

This is a question a former neighbor of mine asked me a couple of years ago. Cornell, my neighbor, is a retired, hard working guy who spent his life welding, building houses, and working for a while at the county landfill driving a dozer. He was interested in archaeology but he did not know much about it. He read some books and I gave him a copy of “Exploring the Fremont” which he thought was interesting. He would sometimes invite me over to his house and we would sip on Tecate and he would ask me questions about prehistoric Utah while flipping through the pages of “Shotgun News” or “Playboy.”

In my answer to Cornell, I said “well, you pay for archaeology.” Every time he paid his phone bill or his utility bill or put gas in his 1968 Ford Bronco, Cornell paid for a little archaeology. I did my best explaining how archaeology works in the United States. I talked about project and legislative drivers that keep many archaeologists employed. Cornell is a big man and I was wondering if I was about to get my ass kicked when he bellowed, “well what a bunch of shit. Here I am paying for it and nobody tells me what I’m getting.”

Archaeology as a profession is doing a better job of telling the public about what they’ve paid for but we’ve got a long way to go. State and federal agencies have been working hard at this for some time and in many ways, the bulk of public outreach and education should come from governmental agencies. Most state and federal agencies have “education” as part of their mission statement so it fits. I’m glad to see a few private CRM companies expanding their mission and offering public programs, workshops, fieldtrips and even public participation in some projects. Personally, I believe that public participation and a public product should be a mandated part of any “consumer” funded archaeological project. Keeping the public informed, educated, and current on the archaeology of a local area is very important especially if we intend to keep public support for archaeology high. Public survey data illustrates a keen interest in archaeology by the general public, but at the same time, the grasp of archaeology as a science is often lost or misunderstood by the public at large. You all know what I mean; you’ve all had that conversation. “Wow, you’re an archaeologist, that is so cool. Did you see that last National Geographic about the dinosaur discovery in China?”

Recently, the Utah Division of State History – Antiquities Section along with the University of Utah Department of Anthropology decided to offer a two-day course called “An Introduction to the Archaeology of Utah.” Day 1 is some classroom time, some modified lessons from Intrigue of the Past, information from the newly revised USAS curriculum, and presentations by graduate students from the U on various research topics from around the state. Day 2 is a field trip to Danger and Jukebox Caves and in June, course participants will have the opportunity to spend a few days in the field with the Antiquities Section at the Mushroom Springs Site out on Antelope Island. Advertisement for the class was via some PSA announcements on KRCL and KCPW, some word of mouth via friends who wanted to take the class, and a short newspaper piece in the Deseret News. It was announced that there would be room in the class for only 20 people. To date (3-5-03) 86 people have either phoned or sent email wanting to get into this course. EIGHTY-SIX! I’ve enrolled 26 people and of these, only 2 are current USAS members. The public here in Utah wants to learn more about archaeology and I believe they want to learn about it from professionals and they want to learn more not because they want to exploit it, but they want to learn about Utah’s past, how people lived here 5000 years ago, how to enjoy archaeology and take care of it.

I think it would be a great idea to offer classes similar to this one on a semi-regular basis. Folks who take this class may decide to join USAS and later, take the more inclusive 40-hour course. It would be rewarding to partner with colleges, universities, and private consulting companies to broaden and extend the outreach efforts begun by state and federal agencies.

A recent email exchange I had with an archaeologist in New York has really got me thinking about the entire concept of “public archaeology.” She asked me if I knew of any schools where they specialize in “public archaeology.” I think if you’re an archaeologist in academia, CRM, or with state or federal agencies, you are a public archaeologist. With very few exceptions, it is the public paying the bills. Lets try not to forget that and let’s keep people like my neighbor informed about the unique, interesting, and important archaeology in the state of Utah.

Site Stewardship Programs and USAS Convention
Marty Thomas, USAS

(Milwaukee, WI, April 11, 2003) Jeanne M. Moe has been selected by the Society for American Archaeology to receive the 2003 'SAA Excellence in Public Education Award'. The Society for American Archaeology is an international organization of more than 6600 professional and avocational archaeologists dedicated to the research, interpretation, and protection of the archaeological heritage of the America's. This award is conferred annually for outstanding achievements by individuals or institutions in the sharing of archaeological knowledge and issues with the public. Ms. Moe is Director of National Project Archaeology, a Bureau of Land Management heritage education program that operates in partnership with The Watercourse at Montana State University in Bozeman, Montana.

Ms. Moe's public archaeology education efforts teach young citizens about their cultural heritage so that they are equipped to make wise decisions concerning the use and protection of archaeological sites now and in the future. For more than a decade, first as Director of the Utah State Bureau of Land Management's Intrigue of the Past: Archaeological Education Program, and then as Director of National Project
Archaeology, Jeanne Moe has been instrumental in developing quality educational resources that engage students and teachers with the citizenship values that underlie efforts to preserve archaeological heritage.

To date, 5100 teachers in more than 16 states have participated in these programs with more than 150,000 students annually receiving archaeology as part of their educational instruction. Jeanne Moe's pioneering leadership in archaeological education has helped make archaeological research available to the public and has helped combat vandalism and theft of our Nation's archaeological resources.

For further contact:
Jeanne M. Moe, Director, BLM National Project
Archaeology (in partnership with The Watercourse,
MSU), 201 Culbertson Hall, MSU, Bozeman, MT
59717. 406-994-7582
E-mail: jmoe@montana.edu
http://www.blm.gov/heritage/project_archaeology.htm

NEW UPAC WEBSITE!
UPAC has launched a new website! You can find it at: www.upaconline.org. Thank you to Rachel Quist for her hard work on setting this up! From our new homepage, you can join the Yahoo! Groups listserve, keep up on current events, read the latest UPAC announcements, and find contact information! Check it out!

Special Thanks from the Editor
A special thanks to all those who contributed to this issue of the newsletter! The number and quality of submittals was FANTASTIC! Please submit any new ideas or topics for the next newsletter before September 1, 2003.

There have been some suggestions that the UPAC News begin including information regarding broader issues that are affecting archaeology nationwide. This is a call for any UPAC members that come across interesting articles, websites, or debates to send this information to Bonnie Bass, UPAC News Editor. Remember, this newsletter is a great avenue for disseminating information to the archaeological community!

UPAC Fall Business Meeting*, November 1, 2002
CEU Prehistoric Museum, Price, Utah

Submitted by Rachel Quist
Presiding: Matt Seddon

Meeting called to order at 1:10 pm, 37 people in attendance
*The following is an abbreviated version of the minutes. A full copy of the Spring Minutes can be accessed here.

1. Review & Approve Minutes of Spring Meeting
Minutes of the fall meeting reviewed and approved unanimously.

2. Treasurer’s Report
Investor advantage account, $4,271.47. Checking, $4,793.73. Total of both, $9,065.23.

3. Membership Report
Please ensure that dues payments are current.

4. Geology Licensing
UPAC sought and was granted, an archaeology exemption to the new state of Utah rules licensing geologists; however, a geoarchaeology exemption was not granted. The following options regarding pursuing a geoarchaeology exemption were presented and discussed:

5. Proposal to Amend the Bylaws
This proposal to amend the bylaws will accomplish the following objectives: 1) The Treasurer will keep the membership rolls. 2) The VP Membership and Ethics will maintain an award system to recognize contributions to the archaeology of Utah. 3) Clarify the role of Journal Editor and Curriculum Director as members of the Executives Committee. 4) Change the “Utah Avocational Archaeologist Certificate Program (UAACP)” to “Utah Avocational Archaeology Education Program (UAAEP)”

6. Revisit UPAC Meeting Formats
Matt Seddon: In order to encourage greater participation, UPAC may change the meetings to a summer-winter schedule and may hold joint meetings with USAS.

7. Thematic Conference Proposal
Possible ideas regarding a thematic conference: 1) Issues surrounding museum curation, especially regarding historic artifacts. 2) Lithic Scatters. Include the papers from the conference in a special publication.

8. Open Forum:
At the last Great Basin Anthropological Conference, a nominating committee was formed to expand the GBAC membership.

Kristen Jensen: A draft of the GIS Data Transmittal Standards and Conventions for electronic GIS data submittal to UDSH is now available.

Acknowledgements:
Projectile point and groundstone drawings used in the print version of this newsletter were created by Shannon Arnold.

FIELD SCHOOLS

University of Utah Field School 2003
The University of Utah’s summer program in archaeological field techniques will be held in various locations in the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau.

Sponsored by the Department of Anthropology and the Utah Museum of Natural History, this eight week residential course teaches survey, excavation, mapping, and archaeological method and theory. Students will gain archaeological experience at prehistoric habitation structural sites, smaller prehistoric artifact scatters, granaries, and rock art sites.

Students will work at two different locations in Utah: Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge located in Utah’s West Desert, and Range Creek Canyon in eastern Utah. Accommodations are generally comfortable, although relatively primitive.

Instructor: Dr. Duncan Metcalfe: Associate Professor of Anthropology and Curator of Archaeology at the Utah Museum of Natural History.

Credit Hours: Variable: between 6 and 8 semester hours for the full course or 2 credit hours for the Fish Springs session only.

Cost: Tuition and a $750.00 special fee (covers transportation, meals and supplies).

Dates: Summer Semester, June 9-July 31, 2003

Enrollment: The course is limited to 20 students and admittance is by application only. Applications are available on our web site or through the University of Utah Archaeology Center (Stewart 117) http://www.anthro.utah.edu/anthro/fieldschool/fieldschool.html

You can contact the field assistants with any questions:
Shannon Arnold at shannon_arnold@hotmail.com
Bonnie Bass at bbass@umnh.utah.edu
Joel Boomgarden at joelb13@hotmail.com

Utah State University Archaeology Field School
Paleoindian Use of the Northern Utah Rocky Mountains

Anthropology 5300. 6 credits. $802 tuition (subject to legislative change) + $400 fee Tuition is the same for Utah residents and non-residents. For general information about Utah State University, application to the university, and on-line registration: www.usu.edu.

• Dates: June 2 – July 11, 2003
• Prerequisite: Anthropology 1030 (World Archaeology) or equivalent
• Application form: Available in the USU Anthropology office and from Dr. Pitblado
• Apply early: Enrollment limited to 16; applicants accepted first-come, first-served

Description: This field school is survey-based. In it, you will learn how to design and conduct a survey; identify, map and photograph artifacts and sites; record sites on Utah “IMACS” forms; and use key quipment (total station, GPS unit, topographic map, compass, etc.) Our research goal is to locate Paleoindian sites (dating from ca. 11,700 – 7,500 years ago) in the northern Utah high country. However, we will encounter and record sites of all ages, so your exposure to archaeological finds will be broad. Upon successful completion of field school, participants (and only participants) may apply for a paid position conducting additional survey in themountains of southwest Colorado, July 14 – Aug 20, 2003.

Logistics:
• Work schedule: M – F (transportation to and from Logan provided); 4th of July off
• Physical requirements: You must be able to hike 5 – 10 rigorous miles per day
• Accommodations: Camping, at a developed campground or a field camp
• Camp location: We will work out of two base camps—one on the Ashley National Forest; one on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest
• We supply: Archaeological equipment, transportation, food, communal camp gear
• You supply: Personal camping gear (tent, sleeping bag, etc.) & a compass
• Camp chores: Participants will be organized into cooking and camp chore teams

For more information or an application: Dr. Bonnie Pitblado, Department of Sociology, Social Work & Anthropology, 0730 Old Main Hill, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322. Phone: 435-797-1496. E-mail: bpitblado@hass.usu.edu

UPAC Home | Members Only | Contacts | Membership | About UPAC | Journal | Newsletter | Events & News | Related Links | Site Map | UPAC Store © All content property of Utah Professional Archaeological Council (UPAC).